As Biden’s Censorship Barriers Erode, We Embrace a Renewed Open Society

Is Donald Trump a “dictator?” Were the events of January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC an “insurgency?”

Is Joe Biden as “sharp as a tack?”

Is the issue of climate change “settled science?”

Are figures such as Javier Milei of Argentina, Marine Le Pen of France, and the AfD party in Germany considered “far right?”

Is the Wuhan lab-leak theory merely a “conspiracy theory?” Was the virus’s widespread impact labeled a “pandemic of the unvaccinated?” Does Anthony Fauci truly “represent science?”

Does Elon Musk’s platform, X, promote hatred? Are “fact-checkers” genuinely checking facts?

Are “fake news” and “disinformation” serious threats to “our democracy?”

Let’s reflect on these questions: Why are we in a position to answer them?

In an open society, various perspectives challenge each other in vigorous competition. Each viewpoint may hold a fragment of truth or at least contain useful insights.

Even those who believe in flat Earth theories can express their views. Bigfoot enthusiasts find their place on channels like Discovery. Amidst absurdity, there could be something valuable to consider.

Since we never truly know where or when the dialogue will end, it is ongoing.

A wide range of perspectives ought to be encouraged in an open society, akin to the intellectual concept of hybrid vigor.

If everyone thinks the same way, a singular misjudgment shared by all could lead to global catastrophe.

Mandated reality

These notions are not novel; they have long been ingrained in American culture. Our baseline has always been debate and discussion.

When topics like slavery became taboo, significant figures emerged and fierce conflicts arose to restore balance.

However, in recent years, there has been a concerted effort to upend the principles of an open society. The previous administration, led by Joe Biden, attempted to enforce a version of reality that allowed no dissent.

Backed by allies in media, academia, and bureaucracy, the administration envisioned itself as the guardian of truth.

Yet, on every critical issue facing the nation, they were consistently mistaken — I use “almost” as a leniency.

From handling the pandemic to economic matters, from energy strategies to issues of peace and conflict, the nameless group that operated the government while Biden was in office caused significant turmoil.

The freedom of failure

However, that was not the most troubling aspect. Mistakes are natural, particularly in governance — anyone who disagrees is encouraged to explore British economist Paul Ormerod’s aptly titled book, “Why Most Things Fail.”

When failures occur, the solution is to try a different approach — this concept is what’s known as trial and error, similar to the scientific method, which has propelled humanity from caves to cars like Teslas.

The Biden administration, continually making poor decisions, chose to canonize these errors. They positioned themselves as the custodians of reality, claiming ownership of truth, repeatedly asserting, “Error is truth,” while demanding their narrative be accepted as correct.

“Error is truth.” The dialogue was concluded.

Regarding each of the earlier questions, the sole accepted response was “Yes.” Through these affirmations, the ruling elite believed they were crafting a new and improved reality — a realm where their aspirations for power and control could be realized.

But were those claims factual?

Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister of New Zealand during the pandemic, publically stated what Biden’s backers merely whispered behind closed doors.

“We continue to be your single source of truth,” Ardern asserted about her administration. “Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth.”

In a similar vein, this administration deemed itself possessing a divine trait: they were the exclusive source of truth and enlightenment, attributing their many mistakes to the misguided perceptions of a deluded populace.

The debate was deemed over.

Disgracefully, the press supported this narrative. They defended and echoed the government much like a devout person might advocate and quote sacred texts.

Academia complied, as did many corporations.

Mainstream religious groups conformed, placing the secular proclamations of an elderly president above their established principles.

The open society was put on hiatus for repairs indefinitely.

Again: The gravest risk of a closed system is not the presence of errors but the inability to correct them — the impossibility of ever discovering the truth.

For four years, we were ensnared by the dim flickering shadows of Plato’s cave, while hostile nations and violent factions, rooted firmly in harsh reality, wrought havoc across the globe.

In the end, whoever scripted Biden’s teleprompter remained isolated in a bunker far removed from any semblance of reality.

In his peculiar farewell address, he ranted once again about “misinformation and disinformation facilitating the abuse of power.”

He lamented Facebook’s rejection of fact-checkers, who shamelessly became instruments for twisting error into truth.

“The truth is suffocated by lies,” said our ex-president, and he should be aware of that (though likely doesn’t).

The rationale for dismantling the open society was that ordinary individuals are incapable of handling the truth. They would be misled by populists and demagogues into relinquishing our hard-earned freedoms for a deceptive reward.

‘Our democracy’

To preserve truth, freedom, and the American way, the ringmasters of the Biden circus believed they were entitled to rule indefinitely. They labeled this type of governance “our democracy” — and it was the possessive that mattered.

Yet, this country has been in similar predicaments before. John Adams convinced Congress to enact the Sedition Act, imprisoning citizens for speaking ill of the federal government — essentially punishing those who criticized him.

Adams was decisively defeated by Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 election. Thankfully, Jefferson recognized the paramount importance of state oversight concerning truth.

He articulated this in his inaugural address: “If there are any among us who wish to dissolve this Union, or to alter its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

“Let them stand undisturbed” — like the flat-Earthers or the Bigfoot believers, every quirky or unfavored view in this vast and diverse nation contributes its bit of truth to the larger discourse.

Americans, Jefferson understood, did not require government intervention to protect them from mistakes. Truth, he trusted, would often resonate with reason’s voice but seldom align with the mandates of power.

Utilizing the prevalence of falsehoods to justify censorship merely swaps one assortment of easily debunked lies for another set that is far more challenging to disprove. At that juncture, Jefferson launched the American interpretation of the open society — the freest, most accommodating, and most tolerant iteration in history.

The comparisons to the current transition are not insignificant.

Biden and his associates, akin to Adams, were vanquished by the widespread unpopularity of their actions. They faced disgrace and were ousted from power by their own coalition. Their chosen successor, Kamala Harris, was decisively defeated by Trump.

By Inauguration Day, most of them had vacated Washington, leaving behind little of substance other than a lingering sense of ineffectiveness.

A new team is at the helm now. This encapsulates the beauty of our system: It permits a chance for reorientation and renewal of faith.

Will Trump and his fellow rebels achieve success where the Biden administration so dismally faltered?

That’s a modest hurdle to overcome. As a citizen of this nation, I sincerely wish them the best — though I am reminded of Paul Ormerod.

When it comes to governance, failures abound. One can only hope that the new entrants in Washington will commit fewer catastrophic mistakes than their predecessors.

Whether Trump’s policies are deemed correct or wrong certainly carries weight, but the revival of vibrant American discourse, unrestrained and fearless, emblematic of a Jeffersonian open society, is of even greater significance, as it paves the way for progress.

Let there be fight

Let there be passionate debates amongst political allies, Republicans contrasting with Republicans, Democrats critiquing Democrats, and engagement across the political spectrum.

And let external voices, whether popular or obscure, orthodox or unorthodox, also partake.

I propose a simple gauge to determine if we have regained the liberty to discuss all crucial topics: Count how frequently the term “disinformation” is mentioned over the next four years.

Since 2021, we have consistently heard from those in power: “What you just stated is dangerous disinformation and must be eliminated from the public discourse.”

Should this trend persist into 2025, our cultural indicators may turn pink, reminiscent of COVID-19 testing kits. The ailment remains.

However, envision a scenario where we hear instead: “What you claimed is incorrect, and here is the evidence supporting my perspective.”

The conversation at that juncture would restart — once initiated, it would continue indefinitely, exchanging ideas, encompassing failures and successes alike, into the future.

As mentioned, Trump’s administration is confronted with an extraordinary number of challenges to address, both domestically and internationally.

Nonetheless, nothing is more pressing or will contribute to their legacy more than re-establishing an open society for all Americans, regardless of their beliefs.

On his first day in office, he signed an executive order asserting, “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

This serves as a commendable start. Further action is necessary.